> On June 28, 2016, 6:26 a.m., Rajat Khandelwal wrote:
> > lens-api/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/api/ToXMLString.java, line 71
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/diff/1/?file=1431213#file1431213line71>
> >
> >     If `tClass` is changed from `Class<T>` to just `Class`, then the caller 
> > has no idea what to pass there. We can't expect the callers to pass the 
> > correct `ObjectFactory` class. Can we revert this and incorporate the logic 
> > of picking/not picking object factory or package name here?

The package logic fails with lensseesionhandle. It says "package" doesnt 
contain ObjectFactory.class or jaxb.index.


- Lavkesh


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/#review139735
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 27, 2016, 5:57 p.m., Lavkesh Lahngir wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 27, 2016, 5:57 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for lens.
> 
> 
> Bugs: LENS-1205
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LENS-1205
> 
> 
> Repository: lens
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Classes generated from xsd do not contain the @XMLRootElement. We need to 
> Pass a JAXBElement object while calling marshal() method. Also at the time 
> unmarshal(), it returns the JAXBElement.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   lens-api/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/api/ToXMLString.java fca56a8 
>   
> lens-api/src/test/resources/toString/org.apache.lens.api.query.SchedulerJobHandle.xml
>  ef7d0c7 
>   
> lens-api/src/test/resources/toString/org.apache.lens.api.query.SchedulerJobHandle.yaml
>  567d8cf 
>   
> lens-server/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/server/scheduler/SchedulerDAO.java 
> e866eb3 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lavkesh Lahngir
> 
>

Reply via email to